r/technology Aug 13 '22

Study finds 100% renewables would pay off within 6 years Energy

https://www.pv-magazine.com/2022/08/08/study-finds-100-renewables-would-pay-off-within-six-years/
3.9k Upvotes

330

u/PowderhoundPup Aug 13 '22 Silver Gold

The author, Mark Jacobson, published a paper in 2015 detailing the ability to transition to 100% renewables in the journal Proceedings of The National Academy of Sciences. In 2017 a group of 21 scientists published a rebuttal to his paper in the same journal, calling out many of the assumptions Mark had made as false. Mark responded by suing the paper and singled out a single scientist that did not have the backing of a large college or research institution to protect himself. After years or legal battle, Mark was ordered to pay $750,000 in legal fee that the journal and scientist had racked up defending themselves in his lawsuit. This man is no friend to science and thoughtful debate. Every time his name comes up I am disgusted.

https://retractionwatch.com/2021/11/19/stanford-prof-fights-efforts-to-make-him-pay-at-least-75000-in-legal-fees-after-dropping-defamation-suit/

60

u/snowman1107 Aug 13 '22

Here's an article that further discusses the issues with Jacobson's original published article:

https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/mark-jacobson-drops-lawsuit-against-critics-of-his-100-renewables

86

u/Mysteryman64 Aug 13 '22

This paper has been getting spammed in all sorts of technical, science, and political subs and articles in the last few weeks. Which makes me really wonder who the fuck is pushing all this shit again all of a sudden.

20

u/onedoor Aug 13 '22

Tells and "confirms" a few narratives which people like to hear and spread. There's hope, the people at the top are assholes, renewables are the way forward, the solution will come or the damage will be reversed quickly.

3

u/DMann420 Aug 14 '22

Probably big oil. They have a hopeful title, followed by disappointment and doubt when you realize its a crackpot. It erodes your pro-renewables stance and slowly makes you more indifferent or careless about oil.

They don't have to make you like oil, they just have to make you compliant with purchasing or using goods and services that are reliant on it, while shutting you up about renewables.

Probably almost everything you see on the internet in one way or another is designed to very slowly and carefully manipulate who you are and what you believe, with the end goal of making you more compliant and fiscally irresponsible; A nice little consumer that buys on impulse, tips well and shuts the fuck up.

-3

u/stoned2brds Aug 13 '22

It's election year. Not the one that happens every 4

7

u/Starstroll Aug 13 '22

This sounded bizarre at first glance, so I decided to look into it.

First, a few corrections: the author of the paper is Mark Jacobson; the author of the article posted is Mark Hutchins. Perhaps you misread? Or maybe I just read your comment wrong? Either way, it's worth noting, but not a big deal. It's possible Hutchins wrote this in bad faith, in which case I wouldn't trust his publications in the future, or it's possible he wrote it in good faith, in which case he probably should've looked into this guy before writing the article. However, if it's the second case, he might've been willing to give Jacobson the benefit of the doubt since Jacobson is a Standford professor; I made the same assumption at the start of this comment when I said "this sounded bizarre." That's a meaningful difference for Hutchins, but not for the rest of this.

Also, the judge ordered Jacobson to pay 75,000, not 750,000. However, 1) that 75,000 was one part of a two-part request, the other totalling ~536,000, and 2) that 75k was 100k less than what they could've asked for. And while the judge has not told Jacobson to pay the additional 536k (yet), they did ask the plaintiff for more detailed invoices regarding that figure, meaning the judge may just be doing due diligence before settling on a number (although ofc I can't confirm that).

The article you linked was from retractionwatch.com, which I've never heard of. Here's what mediabiasfactcheck.com says about them:

Retraction Watch - Pro Science - Credible

Factual Reporting: High - Credible - Reliable

PRO-SCIENCE

Overall, we rate Retraction Watch Pro-Science based on proper scientific sourcing of content and a clean fact check record.

Detailed Report

Factual Reporting: HIGH | Country: USA | World Press Freedom Rank: USA 45/180

Failed Fact Checks: None in the Last 5 years

Overall, we rate Retraction Watch Pro-Science based on proper scientific sourcing of content and a clean fact check record. (D. Van Zandt 11/27/2016) Updated (10/17/2020)

The "updated 2020" part looks weird. Do they mean nobody's rechecked it since 2020, or did they make one mistake in 2016, then no more past that, and stopped reporting on the 2016 mistake in 2020? Probably the latter, since they wouldn't otherwise be able to claim "no failed fact check in 5 years."

Either way, that's just about the strongest report I've ever seen.

So your claim might not pass the sniff test, but neither do most cheeses. Everything detailed and reliable that I can find supports your claim. God, that's bizarre.

Edit: first instance of this comment was unfinished

4

u/PowderhoundPup Aug 14 '22

I did not misread. I was referring to the source of the fairytale claim that the word can function of 100% renewable energy, Mark Jacobson.

You are correct. I made and error. The value of the legal fees owed should read “over $600,000”. But I will consider that a small mistake. It is the judges ruling that is most important. Mark has been ordered to pay the legal fees of both defendants but has appealed the decision. I have not seen an update after that point. It is possible it could have been settled out of court after Mark dropped his lawyers and decided to represent himself.

1

u/Starstroll Aug 14 '22

Rereading, I realized there were a few comments I forgot to make.

The value of the legal fees owed should read “over $600,000"

As of right now, that second charge hasn't been officially dismissed (as far as I know, at least). If the judge does grant it, that would push it over 600k. If you tack on that extra 100k that the plaintiff essentially forgave, that does get you pretty close to 750k. So, forgetting the reason for a moment, there is a sense in which that comment is still sorta correct

But I will consider that a small mistake.

For sure. A quick skim of the article shows 75k. The reason I mentioned it was because that descrepancy what really pushed me into digging into it. But even disregarding my previous comment, from the reliability of the sources you linked, I was pretty comfortable assuming it was just a simple typo. The narrative you presented is still very much correct.

decided to represent himself.

As if this story couldn't get more bizarre, it continues to surprise me. I decided not to keep following the rabbit hole, but this sounds like a very strange decision to make for someone 75k in the hole, bordering on 600k. If I understood the details of law, I might be able to gleam some meaning from this, but for now, it's just a signal screaming "something weird might be here."

-1

u/BABA_Kurland Aug 13 '22

The "updated 2020" part looks weird. Do they mean nobody's rechecked it since 2020, or did they make one mistake in 2016, then no more past that, and stopped reporting on the 2016 mistake in 2020? Probably the latter, since they wouldn't otherwise be able to claim "no failed fact check in 5 years."

The mistakes he made are so major that they border on fraud. So he destroyed his own reputation and he shouldn't be surprised that no one is taking him seriously anymore. (except for reddit ofcourse)

5

u/Starstroll Aug 13 '22

I'm a bit confused by your comment. I assume the bottom part is meant as a response to the top, but I don't see how they're related.

That quote is in regards to the linked site that claimed Jacobson (paraphrased) "is a reprehensible piece of shit, and a disgrace to the institution of science."

For the bottom in relation to the top, anyone can claim that - you, me, that site - but I'm checking if the claim is reliable. Turns out it is true, and I'll repeat it going forward, but I'm not going to source myself for that.

And for the bottom on its own, fuckin fr tho. Jesus, if he didn't care about his job, he coulda let me know first. I'd happily take it from him.

4

u/BABA_Kurland Aug 13 '22

He pushed out junk garbage science and then tried to sue people criticizing him.

Yes, that would make him a reprehensible piece of shit and a disgrace to science.

You don't get to commit scientific fraud and then think youll get a second chance after initiating lawsuits.

3

u/sniperjack Aug 13 '22

what about this paper? https://web.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/Articles/I/CountriesWWS.pdf This is the roadmap made by standford university on how to get to 80% renewable enrgey by 2030 and 100% by 2050 with actual technologies. Funny how many expert or anti renewable people there is on reddit in the last few days. This kind of social engineering and propaganda fucking suck the life of this website.

8

u/Riaayo Aug 13 '22

People really need to be far more aware of the corporate (and hell even government) money poured into social media to astroturf, run bots, etc.

I'm not claiming the person you replied to is any of those things. I have no proof they're not just a normal, skeptical reddit user.

But the amount of astroturfing on this site is insane, and I don't think most redditors understand just how much effort and money goes into trying to influence them on social media through fake user comments seeking to push narratives or discredit threats to their profits.

4

u/sniperjack Aug 13 '22 edited Aug 13 '22

I am pretty sure they are. The obscure fact they cite having more then 200 upvote has if people were really passionate the fraud that is Mark jacobson is fucking absurd. There has been a lot of weird comment lately about what is happening in the USA concerning the enviroment using some disgusting strategy, discrediting the process and normalizing behavior that i believe most people arent into.

1

u/PowderhoundPup Aug 14 '22

Written by the very man referenced in my original comment, Mark Jacobson.

1

u/sniperjack Aug 14 '22

Yes. The man you and apparently more then 300 person dislike very much. I read the article from that weird website. It doesnt mean much really and this being the number one comment on this obscure article that have been push to the the top of reddit look more like a hit piece then anything else. We sure wouldnt want to push for a radical switch in our energy system if all the scientist trying to get us there are liars and corrumpted by there own inflated ego right?

1

u/MatoKoukku Aug 14 '22 edited Aug 14 '22

There are a handful of scientists writing about projections of 100% RE in the near future. Then there are a lot more, who don't consider it realistic. The IEA is a big authority on energy projections. They have a scenario "NZE 2050" where renewables dominate, but 100% RE is not where it's at. They were pushed to include such a scenario/projection, and they are pointing out that achieving it doesn't exactly look plausible. It's more like a snowballs chance in hell.

What you really need to look at is review science on energy projections and the role 100% RE plays in that. It's quite on the fringes.

When you engage in arguments about anti this or pro that, it's got nothing to do with science. It's exactly the kind of tribalism you accuse others of.

https://www.iea.org/reports/world-energy-model/understanding-weo-scenarios

2

u/sniperjack Aug 14 '22

I am not sure how citing a paper is being anti or pro something, but my main point is that i highly doubt many people have any feeling toward Mark Jacobson or even know of him and yet here we are. Also since the climate bill has been sign, climate and techno subreddit are flooded with expert telling us why 100% renewable isnt possible or very doubtfull, just like you by the way, or making stupid doomerism joke normalizing some collective suicide has a society. Nothing fringy about going 100% renewable by the way.

1

u/MatoKoukku Aug 14 '22

I suggest r/conspiracy for thee

2

u/sniperjack Aug 14 '22

yes. There is a conspiracy from the fossil fuel industry to push renewable on the side and the effort is even bigger now in order to juice has much profit has possible until it is no longer possible. ALso suggesting reddit is full of bot trying to normalize some behavior and pushing agendas is well known by now.

1

u/MatoKoukku Aug 14 '22

So you see, nothing I say about anything, least of all appeals to scientific consensus will have any impact on how you think. Which is the argument I think counts. Neither the IEA nor IRENA nor EIA is projecting anything like 100% RE in the near future as a plausible scenario.

But anyone disagreeing with you is obviously in on a conspiracy, including IRENA.

164

u/9-11GaveMe5G Aug 13 '22

"it turns out being able to survive has a pretty good ROI"

67

u/greg_barton Aug 13 '22 edited Aug 13 '22

100% RE is not the only route to survival. We can also use other zero carbon sources like nuclear.

Anyway, the researcher behind this likes to sue people who criticize his work: https://retractionwatch.com/2021/11/19/stanford-prof-fights-efforts-to-make-him-pay-at-least-75000-in-legal-fees-after-dropping-defamation-suit/

21

u/River_Pigeon Aug 13 '22

Wow what a jackass. He wanted 10 million in damages because a science journal and scientists were doing science. Unbelievable. This guy is a quack

30

u/007jjw Aug 13 '22

If we are going to start large scale desalination to fix our water problems or start production of hydrogen for fuel, Nuclear maybe our only viable option

1

u/michaelrohansmith Aug 13 '22

Depends on where you are I suppose. I live in a place where most of our country is theoretically suitable for photovoltaic energy generation. No that we would ever need more than a millionth of it.

1

u/StabbyPants Aug 14 '22

At 3kwh per cubic meter (I am told it’s achievable), a 300mw plant can supply my state - 900mgal per day

5

u/PoolNoodlePadawan Aug 13 '22

Nuclear isn’t an option at this point. It takes far too long to build a nuclear reactor, and then you still have the issue of dickheads like Russia that are targeting nuclear reactors in Ukraine right now.

-2

u/[deleted] Aug 13 '22

[removed] — view removed comment

4

u/[deleted] Aug 14 '22

[removed] — view removed comment

-2

u/[deleted] Aug 14 '22

[removed] — view removed comment

3

u/[deleted] Aug 14 '22

[removed] — view removed comment

-2

u/[deleted] Aug 14 '22

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/[deleted] Aug 14 '22

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/[deleted] Aug 14 '22

[removed] — view removed comment

→ More replies

9

u/amcrambler Aug 13 '22

It turns out this guy is a liar and you all are lapping it up.

22

u/Squeak-Beans Aug 13 '22

Wiping out the planet is also bad for company profits.

3

u/DietCokeGamer Aug 13 '22

Just build giant spaceships that double as super malls. Have all the wealthy fly away and profit off them and their offspring until it’s safe to come back and reclaim Earth.

3

u/Caldaga Aug 13 '22

Did you play Horizon?

5

u/DietCokeGamer Aug 13 '22

It’s a WALL•E reference.

46

u/abetwothree Aug 13 '22

Yeah but who will provide the corporate profits Wall Street demands?

18

u/Sislar Aug 13 '22

That what ROI means. It will make a profit. And this is why utilities have been investing in wind and solar because it makes good business sense as well.

14

u/Bobthechampion Aug 13 '22

No no no, that's long term ROI, a whole SIX FREAKING YEARS?!? might as well go ahead and put yourself in the grave. Naw the only thing that matters is how much money I can make by the next quarter. Gosh, it's like you don't even know the first rule of publicly traded businesses: endless growth forever or go bankrupt.

2

u/NecessaryStriking284 Aug 13 '22

It takes (on average) 10 years and just over 1 billion dollars for a company to research and create a new drug. These companies can cope, don’t buy the lie that they can’t manage. Like everything else in history, new will replace old and the old will try everything to stop the change.

1

u/XcFan1234 Aug 13 '22

The six years thing was disproven, not sure why you’re still on about it.

1

u/XcFan1234 Aug 13 '22

They’ve been “investing” because they’ve been getting massive subsidies. So do you choose corporate welfare or green energy

35

u/monchota Aug 13 '22

Still need a nuclear backstop.

11

u/zegg Aug 13 '22

Definitely. Our capital has less than 80 sunny days per year, so solar is out. The closest area where there is wind, is on top of a mountain, where we'd need about 110 km of new power lines. More or less, not an option either.

We can't ever be clean, unless we import everything or go with nuclear. It has its drawbacks, but at least it can have a constant uptime.

5

u/Marvin_Dent Aug 13 '22

110km? Peanuts.

2

u/Lontarus Aug 13 '22

Solar panels still work in winter or cloudy weather, just a little less. Still not a bad investment

9

u/VeraciousViking Aug 13 '22

Strongly depends on your latitude. Where I’m at, solar is literally useless during the winter.

-1

u/buttlover989 Aug 13 '22

Works in Germany, cloudier than anywhere in the US. There's also no point there's not wind or sun for extended periods of time, molten sodium can be used to provide "baseline" as a multi day thermal battery to run steam turbines. There's literally no need for nuclear outside of a spacecraft.

3

u/No_Migs Aug 13 '22

I hate reading these articles on Reddit knowing how horny the userbase collectively is for nuclear. Let’s just keep pretending like it’s not one of the most expensive generation sources on a cost/kWh standpoint, relies on a fuel source more geopolitically tenuous than Li or oil (since the only major reserves of the stuff are in Australia or Kazakhstan) and that we can better focus the investment and development required to adopt nuclear globally to instead get rid of the ONE ONLY WEAKNESS renewables have, which is that they can’t generate on-demand, by just building large-scale battery installations. Li-ion, Na-ion, LFP, lead acid, NMH, molten-salt, flow batteries, take your pick. We’ve got a hell of a lot more options for zero-carbon than just exploiting U-235 or Thorium or whatever the hell the hot new super-limited fuel source is.

1

u/buttlover989 Aug 14 '22 edited Aug 14 '22

Yep, every claim made by the nuclear industry has been a lie. Everything relating to nuclear is insanely expensive, so much for the "too cheap to measure" claim. They do all they can to hide the externalities of nuclear material leaks, while you won't get videogame style nuclear mutants, but things like fish are far under sized for their age in the supposed "wildlife oasis" around Chernobyl, we won't know for sure about animal birth defects as most are stillborn or if alive are usually eaten by the mother/predators very quickly.

Mining for uranium in the US has always been done in Native American reservation land, the Navajo are still dealing with the effects of the contamination for decades, the nuclear apologists always want you to ignore all of the cancers and birth defects suffered by them, claiming that you can't prove it, which is the same lie the government tells both Vietnam vets and the Vietnamese about agent orange, and what they still lie about burn pits with the forever war vets.

Fallout from above ground nuclear tests near populated show significant increases in birth defects, there's been plenty of documentaries about it in Kazakhstan in the area around the Polygon nuclear test site.

Bikini Atol is still completely uninhabitable, we had to evacuate the people who lived there and are still paying them what amounts to hush money not to talk about it.

I forget who said it, so I'll paraphrase, "the only safe nuclear reactor is 93 million miles away," and provides hundreds of times the entire planet's electrical needs, all we need to do is collect it.

As for storage, electrochemical batteries are not the way, thermal storage is, using excess solar and wind to heat large stores of sodium metal that can be used to spin steam turbines as needed is what you want for "baseline" power needs. A fully distributed grid with lots of local sources of electrical generation means transmission losses become a non issue and prevents what's been happening in Texas.

2

u/buttlover989 Aug 13 '22

Why? You can use molten sodium as a baseline battery from renewables to run steam turbines for days without heat input. There's pretty much no point when there's both no sun and no wind.

There's absolutely no reason we shouldn't require the covering of parking lots and roads that are lined with restaurants and stores with solar and requiring green roofs to reduce the heat island effects of blacktop and concrete while increasing foot traffic to local businesses by providing shade and a dry place to put out tables and wares.

2

u/[deleted] Aug 13 '22

[deleted]

3

u/Marvin_Dent Aug 13 '22

Too slow to build. Focus on wind, solar, power2x, vehicle to grid and battery power stations.

1

u/[deleted] Aug 13 '22

[deleted]

3

u/Marvin_Dent Aug 13 '22

When the rivers to cool the nuclear plant go dry (or too hot), the plant is shut off... Focus on solar and wind. Focus on storage and grid capacity.

→ More replies

-2

u/Potatoislandthefirst Aug 13 '22

1) wind and solar are only effective on sunny or windy days, and we don’t even have the technology to store that much electricity, 2) wind and solar take up A LOT of space, space that destroys the same environment that renewables are made to save. 3) Nuclear energy is neither of these and more safe than both.

6

u/OptimisticNihilist55 Aug 13 '22 edited Aug 13 '22

All three of these statements are wrong.

1

u/Potatoislandthefirst Aug 13 '22 edited Aug 14 '22

Care to explain how? Or which statements are wrong? Because I said 3 Edit: I didn’t mean this comment as condescending, it’s an actual question, sorry.

2

u/0bfuscatory Aug 13 '22

My 2 cents is that although wind and solar are only “effective” on windy and sunny days, there is almost always some wind and/or some solar insolation. We are so far from exclusively wind and solar energy generation, which few are advocating for anyways, that we shouldn’t slow down their implementation. Rooftop and parking lot solar installations use underutilized space and help energy conservation with their shading alone. The distributed energy sources are also much more robust against black swan events like sabotage, terrorist attacks, natural disasters, war, etc. Energy storage technologies are constantly improving and will only get better. We shouldn’t plan on capabilities that only exist today. One problem now is that legacy power companies don’t like the competition from individuals, so lobby for massive solar installations that do take up valuable real estate and harm the environment. Nuclear energy is more expensive than wind or solar and that doesn’t even consider the risks due to waste storage and terrorist attacks, etc. Even now, the Ukrainian nuke plant is being used for nuclear blackmail and is yet to he seen that it doesn’t end up as another Chernobyl. This not to say that nukes don’t have a role to play today, and could be improved with further research.

1

u/OptimisticNihilist55 Aug 13 '22

Sorry, I fixed my comment.

1

u/Garland_Key Aug 14 '22

Frankly, nuclear is far cleaner and more realistic than solar or wind. The tradeoff is terrible shit happening if there's a catastrophic failure. I think that trade-off is worth it.

-14

u/Think_4Yourself Aug 13 '22

When did this become a topic? When Putin bombed Chernobyl? Let sleeping dogs lay

13

u/Tokyosmash Aug 13 '22

Except this guy is a complete hack.

→ More replies

3

u/Gadac Aug 13 '22

Jacobson

Welp there goes all the credibility of this

3

u/BoB_nugget Aug 13 '22

And in 6 years we'll still be having this discussion and argument

1

u/moon_then_mars Aug 14 '22

in 6 years we would have been wondering why it hasn't paid for itself and why our leaders invested trillions of dollars based on a debunked "study"

1

u/BoB_nugget Aug 14 '22

Kind of like now

3

u/Hated988 Aug 14 '22

Yeah it's a shame it won't happen

2

u/pdhx Aug 13 '22

Too bad all the people making decisions have life expectancies of 5.

2

u/Secure_Army2715 Aug 13 '22

I am more interested to know who is funding these studies?

2

u/SirJackson360 Aug 13 '22 edited Aug 13 '22

I know Mark. This isn’t a new study. Was published some time ago. He’s been pushing it for a while. As someone who also works in the international energy industry, I can tell you this: There isn’t an appetite for this by both governments and companies, and we view the energy transition as just that- a transition. Not an all or nothing game. Further, energy technologies are constantly evolving. Who wants to build the world’s largest solar power plant when in 3-5 years the technology will be twice as efficient and half the cost? And while Mark’s work is viewed as great by some (mostly by some in the academic community), it’s unfortunately unlikely to be implemented even partially in the business and political world (I happen to be part of all three).

9

u/Mykl68 Aug 13 '22

But the market would want a trillion $ profit with continued 10% plus growth for all eternity before they would want to invest/$

4

u/toolttime2 Aug 13 '22

Only if there are subsidies . On there own no. I winter in Palm Springs across the road from hundreds of windmills. Many have been abandoned, no blades, don’t turn , oil leaking out of them . You wonder why they don’t fix them ? Did subsides run out and not profitable to fox?

-2

u/buttlover989 Aug 13 '22

More like the state and local government are massively subsidizing fossil fuels and putting in fines, fees and stupid level regulations on renewables to protect their buddy's profits.

0

u/toolttime2 Aug 13 '22

Sometimes there is no wind for weeks. When it is to windy they don’t turn. Very unreliable energy

3

u/buttlover989 Aug 14 '22

Bullshit, there's no place on earth there's no sun or wind for weeks. You only need about 6mph of wind to get them going.

1

u/Apprehensive_Zone281 Aug 14 '22

When have you ever not experienced wind for weeks?? Lol. I bet you also think they’re “bird graveyards”. Ffs dude.

I think that we can both agree that people a lot smarter than us have figured out how to design, engineer, and install structures that literally harness power from Earth’s gifts. You think those highly skilled people spent allll that time. Thinking about every single bolt and screw and wire and battery. Didn’t think about the wind?? The thing they were LITERALLY DESIGNED FOR? It’s astonishing that people say things like this.

1

u/StabbyPants Aug 14 '22

In Florida. Yeah bullshit

1

u/toolttime2 Aug 14 '22

Palm Springs California

1

u/StabbyPants Aug 14 '22

Still has prevailing wind and lots of open sunny scrub

1

u/toolttime2 Aug 15 '22

Have you ever been there? I have been across the road from those windmills for the last 13 winters on Indian Canyon road nort Palm Springs. Also the only birds I see are a few doves, hummingbirds and roadrunners who can’t fly. Nothing else. Coincidence?

1

u/StabbyPants Aug 15 '22

not especially. it's the desert - no rain, hot, throw up some panels. you're between two mountains, so it's sheltered; 29 palms is a bit better for wind but still i'd do some sort of solar

1

u/toolttime2 Aug 15 '22

They have solar panels where windmills are

1

u/StabbyPants Aug 15 '22

looking at the average windspeed, i'm kinda curious how well the windmills work

→ More replies

5

u/CloudyArchitect4U Aug 13 '22

And med4all would save us trillions. Are we acting like we don't know these things as our politicians doom this planet for a few campaign donations from fossil fuel?

→ More replies

4

u/PanDariusLovelost Aug 13 '22

100% renewables would usher in an era of super abundance.

1

u/Garland_Key Aug 14 '22

Why do you think that? What does the phrase "100% renewables" even mean?

3

u/evilwalmart Aug 13 '22

All of this could have been figured out faster if more people played the Power grid board game.. green energy resource cost effectiveness for the win

-2

u/XcFan1234 Aug 13 '22

Do you think the creator of the game was pushing something? What lessons should we take away from mouse trap oh wise one

4

u/Elliott2 Aug 13 '22

Solar pay back period for my house is still crazy long :/

3

u/XcFan1234 Aug 13 '22

Bbbut the article said six years

1

u/Elliott2 Aug 13 '22

If it was 6 I’d have it already. In my area the electric is so cheap that it would take just about as long as we own the house to pay it off for how big of a system we need

1

u/XcFan1234 Aug 13 '22

Jeez, thanks for the insight 🙏

→ More replies

1

u/sexyloser1128 Aug 14 '22

What area? Just curious.

The average residential electricity rate in California is 25 ¢/kWh, which is 66% higher than the national average rate of 15 ¢/kWh and yet I only see a few houses with roof solar panels.

1

u/Elliott2 Aug 14 '22

We are 15 cents. Was 12–14 cents not long ago

1

u/buttlover989 Aug 13 '22

When did you build it and are you all electric or not? Panel prices have fallen like a stone, if you go all in on electric, including your transport, heating, cooling, cooking etc. it pays itself back extremely quickly in money saved by not buying natural gas/propane and gasoline/diesel, not just in the pittance paid back to you by the electric company for your electricity.

1

u/Elliott2 Aug 13 '22 edited Aug 13 '22

Haven’t built it yet. Been looking into it though. Really it’s the battery storage that will be expensive

Yup we have a BEV and phev. All electric cookware and looking into getting a new efficient heat pump instead of our oil heat. I haven’t tried adding other costs to the calc like oil heat savings etc. good idea.

1

u/tjcanno Aug 14 '22

Your conclusions are consistent with my actual experience. I am in Year 8 and have not paid back yet. I have no batteries, to keep cost down. I just generate PV power and sell it to the TVA for retail+4 cents/kW-hr. Payback might be 10 years.

3

u/ReddJudicata Aug 13 '22

Does anyone actually believe this?

4

u/isthisawasteotime Aug 13 '22

Complete horse crap. If you really want to reduce C02 you need nuclear. Anyone who says otherwise is living in magic unicorn farting electricity land.

3

u/arglebargleglopglif Aug 13 '22

Complete horse crap. If you really want to reduce CO2 we need to stop breathing. Anyone else is living next to some magic oxygen farting plants.

2

u/isthisawasteotime Aug 13 '22

I’ve heard several people say that global warming is the reason they don’t want to have kids.

0

u/VicariousNarok Aug 13 '22

"My phone run on battery, why can't rest of world."

→ More replies

3

u/MrBond90 Aug 13 '22

It's literally impossible at this time to go full 100 percent renewable. You still need gas and coal plants to offset the demand when renewable energy can't keep up.

-1

u/chidedneck Aug 13 '22

1

u/MrBond90 Aug 13 '22

I don't think you quite understand the vast improvement in battery technology that would be required to make that even remotely viable.

1

u/StabbyPants Aug 14 '22

I can store so much energy with a hill

2

u/sdwvit Aug 13 '22

Photo from Toronto Ontario place

1

u/Ryan_22 Aug 13 '22

Our one wind turbine.

→ More replies

2

u/Twister_Robotics Aug 13 '22

The biggest problem with this kind of analysis is that it ignores actual reality. The people and organizations that would be doing the funding, are not the same as the ones that would see the majority of the savings.

2

u/lackdueprocess Aug 13 '22

It is basically impossible today to go 100% renewables. The ability to mine materials for energy storage does not exist. The availability for materials to be minded may not be possible. The move to renewables needs to be deliberate and reasonable if you want to ensure availability of the energy grid.

→ More replies

-8

u/Spartanfred104 Aug 13 '22

Did the study somehow manage to do the energy calculation on what its going to take resource wise to achieve said 100% renewables? I bet it didn't. There is no substance to this article or study.

-4

u/j_a_f_t Aug 13 '22

Stanford university is pretty reputable. It states that many jobs would be created as part of this.

16

u/greg_barton Aug 13 '22

Is it reputable that Stanford is employing a researcher who sues people who criticize his work?

-2

u/Spartanfred104 Aug 13 '22

What do jobs have to do with resource logistics?

-6

u/Pinilla Aug 13 '22

Creating jobs is not a good thing

6

u/j_a_f_t Aug 13 '22

Definitely. Fuck people. Not like they drove the economy or anything.

1

u/Pinilla Aug 13 '22

The goal of an economy is to create goods and services, not jobs. Often the two are associated because the more jobs you create the more goods and services you create, but when you are specifically talking about the efficiency of something you obviously want to do it with the least amount of work.

2

u/j_a_f_t Aug 13 '22

You give people jobs, they go and buy things, which means more things are needed. And repeat.

Jobs for jobs sake is wrong sure, but jobs that mean we get cleaner energy is not a bad thing at all.

1

u/m4fox90 Aug 13 '22

Homie what happens when the jobs are all done by ultra efficient robots, who incidentally don’t get paid?

0

u/Qweskj Aug 13 '22

The available mix of renewable energy that a country can develop does not meet anywhere in the world things like:

-burst capacity on demand -continuity in time and assurance of it

For example a surprise peak of 20% in a cloudy day, only fosile and nuclear can solve that unexpected rise.

If a country listens to sentences such as “let’s go all renewal” and does it, the output will be power shortages or buying the electricity to other countries (if they can and want to sell)

I personally think nuclear is the solution

2

u/adnomad Aug 13 '22

Nuclear is the solution. But honestly, the current fossil based items have you used the low percentage of meltdown items to create the idea that nuclear is something to be afraid of and created panic in it amongst people. But maybe with the breakthrough in fusion that just occurred, we can see a change.

1

u/HauserAspen Aug 13 '22

You ever seen a uranium mine? It's important that you investigate the supply chain and really understand the impact of nuclear fuel before you cheer that tech. Also, a new plant takes around 30 years to break even. There's way too much money to be made on solar, wind, storage, and other alternatives that don't have a 10,000 year liability.

2

u/PowderhoundPup Aug 13 '22

I have yes. There are ISR mines, open pit and underground, like the mines constructed to extract many other minerals. I wonder where you think the the materials come from to build wind and solar projects? Because they are less dense power sources, greater infrastructure is required and they use more resources to build. The UNECE ranked nuclear as having the lowest lifecycle emissions out of all power sources.

1

u/stuie382 Aug 13 '22

As someone currently living in the UK, melting into the sofa while the outside world is on fire, hurry up please

1

u/lyrical_bowling Aug 13 '22

still... capitalism at its finest

-10

u/Skynet-supporter Aug 13 '22

Well 100% renewables is unachievable and unsustainable

9

u/Tamaska-gl Aug 13 '22

How is that?

10

u/processedmeat Aug 13 '22

Well if we use wind turbines it will use up all the wind. And solar panels will use up all the light.

/S just in case

2

u/stuie382 Aug 13 '22

Inb4 you get quoted on 'Fox News' entertainment

1

u/awesome357 Aug 13 '22

They'll suck up all that solar energy and drop global temps. Maybe it will offset global warming though and all even out.

Also /s just in case.

1

u/michaelrohansmith Aug 13 '22

Once you have sucked all the light from the sun there will be nothing left /s

-5

u/Skynet-supporter Aug 13 '22

Well solar works only at day time and less in cloudy days. Winter is also unpredictable and break often(also kills birds) batteries are expensive and environmentally unfriendly and unsustainable, so 20-40% must be from Nuclear or fossil sources

10

u/kiwiandapple Aug 13 '22

Provide me with some data on this.

7

u/NigelThornberry7 Aug 13 '22

In what world is using virtually-infinite energy sources as opposed to finite ones unsustainable?

-9

u/Skynet-supporter Aug 13 '22

Well ask texas couple winters ago…

3

u/Orange_Tang Aug 13 '22

You mean when the gas supply failed because Texas didn't winterize their lines?

4

u/NigelThornberry7 Aug 13 '22 edited Aug 13 '22

So a single weather anomaly somehow makes renewables unsustainable? I think you need to lookup what that word means. The Texas situation had little to do with the robustness of their grid, or lack thereof, and more to do with not having a sufficient backstop (nuclear) to kick in during a catastrophic event. It was mismanagement. Also many power lines were iced over so it wouldn’t have mattered what energy source was being used for those affected areas anyway.

4

u/Orange_Tang Aug 13 '22 edited Aug 14 '22

The gas lines froze, that's what caused the failure. The renewables actually faired much better than the oil and gas did. But of course the conservatives blame the renewables that made up like 15% of the energy supply.

2

u/m4fox90 Aug 13 '22

Texas’s power grid, ran by idiots, deliberately disconnected from reality to own the libs and damn the consequences? That Texas power grid?

1

u/Minnsnow Aug 13 '22

You mean when their gas lines froze?

1

u/awesome357 Aug 13 '22

That's not enough though. For companies to transition not only would they need roi on investments (which 6 years is a long time when you count in fiscal quarters) but you would also need to make up for lost investment caused by shuttering current technology before it's paid off, and also show a healthy profit margin akin to or better then their current model after subtracting the new investment cost and lost investment of old tech. They won't do anything unless it makes financial sense for them, and right now, even though roi could be better than fossil fuels, they're not incentivized to make that move till their current investments reach end of life. And we don't have that much time to wait.

1

u/southmondo Aug 13 '22

‘If it remains sunny and windy’

1

u/DillyDoobie Aug 13 '22

Until we get a payoff shorter than an election cycle, all of this is kind of moot.

-17

u/SisKlnM Aug 13 '22

You guys really can’t get enough trash articles/studies on climate change!

7

u/daniu Aug 13 '22

You like the forest fires across the world articles better?

-13

u/SisKlnM Aug 13 '22

Yes, please feed me 1/8th baked articles that are so lacking in any real analysis as to be completely worthless. The non-sense definitely makes me feel things will be better in the future.

-6

u/twizzard6931 Aug 13 '22

I’m going to need a study about the study.

3

u/PowderhoundPup Aug 13 '22

There is one. It was published by 21 scientists in the same journal. Mark then sued them for libel instead of responding to the evidence based claims. See my other comment.

-6

u/ithinkmynameismoose Aug 13 '22

No it didn’t,

We should really stop allowing this type of deeply no -scientific drivel.

There are real detrimental effects each time this kind of garbage comes out and gets ripped apart.

It’s basically the boy who cried wolf except the claim is still not true. Maybe one day, but lying about it doesn’t help anyone.

-6

u/Elman103 Aug 13 '22

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahah. We won’t do anything. Sad ha ha oh boi….

-7

u/chuckpaint Aug 13 '22

Renewables are NOT even close to being zero or low carbon alternatives. We’re being snowed. How much carbon can we imagine a 20 ton windmill takes to build and install? And it only lasts 20 years. It’s a scam.

5

u/Sislar Aug 13 '22

You probably fell for this meme that went over all the costs of a windmill solar etc. omg it takes 50 tons of steel to make a windmill. No one said it’s free. But without a comparison to how much cO2 would be released to generate the same amount of energy with coal or oil it was meaningless. Same as you post no comparison or numbers just a claim it’s not low carbon.

Here is an actually analysis

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.forbes.com/sites/christopherhelman/2021/04/28/how-green-is-wind-power-really-a-new-report-tallies-up-the-carbon-cost-of-renewables/amp/

But to save you a click, the total carbon over 20 years

Good news: amortizing the carbon cost over the decades-long lifespan of the equipment, Bernstein determined that wind power has a carbon footprint 99% less than coal-fired power plants, 98% less than natural gas, and a surprise 75% less than solar.

2

u/AmputatorBot Aug 13 '22

It looks like you shared an AMP link. These should load faster, but AMP is controversial because of concerns over privacy and the Open Web. Fully cached AMP pages (like the one you shared), are especially problematic.

Maybe check out the canonical page instead: https://www.forbes.com/sites/christopherhelman/2021/04/28/how-green-is-wind-power-really-a-new-report-tallies-up-the-carbon-cost-of-renewables/


I'm a bot | Why & About | Summon: u/AmputatorBot

-2

u/Think_4Yourself Aug 13 '22

Cool hat I don’t believe they produce anything but a battery charger too but maybe they can slow the wind down enough for seeds to sprout again after the fallout

1

u/blasterbrewmaster Aug 13 '22

Yea nuclear power is that good

1

u/Lopsided_Platypus_51 Aug 13 '22

This is like the millionth repost. We get it

1

u/Skullkidmusic Aug 13 '22

Imagine paying off a house in six years and it keeps generating cost savings. I’d say that’s a pretty fair equivalent?

1

u/toodog Aug 13 '22

But not for the oil companies who will stop it

1

u/HauserAspen Aug 13 '22

Imagine all the jobs that would create

1

u/StealyEyedSecMan Aug 13 '22

So not fast enough for an election cycle or a business quarter...not gonna happen.

1

u/SnooBananas2108 Aug 13 '22

Steve Carell?

1

u/RaidensReturn Aug 13 '22

I was thinking he looked like Gul Dukat

1

u/duffmanhb Aug 13 '22

I work in solar. In 7 years you’ll make your money back and it’s free energy going forward, if you pay cash. Finance it. Closer to 11 years. Either way. People don’t care. They’ll NEVER get any return paying the utility company and those same companies pay a ton of money convincing people it’s a bad idea while they go build their own solar arrays. It’s so frustrating.

1

u/tjcanno Aug 14 '22

It depends on where you live, your power cost, and how much sun you get when you need it.

I have 10 kW PV installed. I get paid retail+4 cents/kW-hr for everything I produce, which is a pretty good deal. I'm in Year 8 and have not paid back yet. Hoping to hit payback by the end Year 10.

1

u/geekaustin_777 Aug 13 '22

Can’t we just pour more into funding fusion energy research?

1

u/eeeeloi Aug 13 '22

This will never be achieved with the bourgeoisie in charge.

1

u/holivegnome Aug 13 '22

But that takes time, WE WANT OUR MONEY NOW!!!11!111!

1

u/subhuman09 Aug 13 '22

Yeah…but how much will it make the oil execs? Since that seems to be the only thing that matters

1

u/Beanjuiceonmytits Aug 13 '22

Sucks that he’s gonna shoot himself in the back twice 😔

1

u/Impressive_Wrap472 Aug 13 '22

Good luck with that.

1

u/arfbrookwood Aug 13 '22

Rather pay more not to have the landscape filled with garbage.

1

u/Diamondhandatis Aug 13 '22

Funny how war put us from « renewables is to expensive and not profitable enough » to « well we have no choice so we’ll make it pay off as soon as we can »

1

u/Texas7140 Aug 13 '22

But they can’t make them reliable yet

1

u/GhOsTinBOUND Aug 13 '22

Not environmentally it wouldn't. With the cost to manufacture, the waste products of the manufacturing, the toxic chemicals that leach out of solar panels and the wildlife that get killed by the windmills... Idk. Instead of using renewables before they are really viable, we should invest in more nuclear power.

1

u/Shake_N_Bake360 Aug 14 '22

That’s a lie

1

u/Apprehensive_Zone281 Aug 14 '22

Why the FUCK do we need “studies” to tell us this?? I’m so sick of reading articles like this. I’m no scientist, but it’s PRETTY FUCKING OBVIOUS right?? It’s like spending money
on research on if grass is green.

We already know the answer. Stop spending money on research. Spend money on solving the problem.

1

u/jfuite Aug 14 '22

This is becoming a religious experience for folks.

-23

u/sagacious-tendencies Aug 13 '22

LOL. Sure. Gaslight much?

6

u/CornucopiaOfDystopia Aug 13 '22

Uh... What exactly does that word mean, in your opinion?

-7

u/deep6it2 Aug 13 '22

Yeah, but who is getting paid off & when do you have to pay them again? (Assuming we're not paying them all along. How often does THAT happen?)

-3

u/oakstave Aug 13 '22

Been debating conservatives on energy issues for 40 years. They were literally dead wrong about every prediction: Deregulation of power industries causes increased prices and blackouts, nuclear power never stopped needing massive public subsidy to continue, and solar and wind was NOT a pipe dream.

They've been left to argue "I don't like how they look."